On Mon, 31 Oct 2005 15:39:13 GMT, "comanche driver"
wrote:

ive just got to respond to this.

1. the failures of RV-3 wings were fixed years and years ago, from what ive
been told it was not a design problem but a problem with the way people were
assembling the wing. Van redesigned it anyway, for added strength.
2. this my cousin knows someones brother that said---- crap, don't cut it.
Talk to Van. he will tell you exactly what you want to know. his web site
has all the details of the RV-8 wing separation and the testing that was
done after to re-prove the design.
3. check the FAA data base yourself, I have and there has NOT been one
in-flight failure of a wing on a RV-4.
4. with over 3000 planes flying and several thousand more in construction,
stating that the RV line has weak wings, is pure horsesh--.

yes , I am biased, but I will put my RV-4 up against anything out there. Van
is one of the most honest and talented designers out there and his success
more than proves his designs.

R. Burns
RV-4 N82RB

I dug a little deeper and found an excellent article in the Jan.1983
Sport Aviaton, pages 51-55. It was written by R.Van. and is quite
detailed and revealing about the 4 fatal RV-3 wing failure accidents.
It brings up a lot of little known issues pertaining to the FAA's
oversight of homebuilts. Such as the issuance of a GENOT against the
RV-3 prohibiting any aerobatics in them. I never knew the FAA could
issue such a rule against a homebuilt. Since they are supposed to be
51% built by the homebuilder, each one should be viewed as an
individual plane, not related to others. But apparently not in the
FAA's eyes.
On another note, the RV-3 is in my opinion the only really
good-looking RV design. Until the Harmon Rocket came along that is.
The rest of them are, well, lets say they don't get me enthused enough
to want to build one. But then, some builders are more interested in
other things. The RV-4 looks pretty good too, but seems small for 2
people.